Zaphael

There are many reasons why Jester doesn't lock or why the TID is not showing them as painted. But I am not sure why your procedures of turning off the radar on the ground etc works. I usually encounter the following problems with Jester. 1. Antenna Elevation is wrong. The radar is searching the wrong patch of sky vertically. You may have a datalink target at 2000ft dead centre. But Jester is a little silly and does not adjust the radar to scan low. He just looks straight ahead... You will need to use Jester wheel to tell him to scan higher or lower. 2. Target aspect. If a target is flying abeam to you, the radar doesn't track very well, UNLESS you command a Single Target Track. If you see the TID relative vectors pointing 45 degrees to the left or right, the target is actually beaming you, flying 90 degrees perpendicular. You should command jester to STT the target before you lose him in the beam. 3. Jester is quirky. This seldom happens these days kudos to HB. But there are still some times weird errors. E.g. calling out a hostile Su-27 as friendly. Leaving radar settings to automatic works well when targets are beyond 40 miles. The scan volume typically catches most stuff. As targets get closer, they can end up outside the scan volume. Hence knowing how to manually til the antenna Elevation is very useful.

VoiceAttack VAICOM Pro can help you get Jester to set the elevation via some voice commands. First you got to set the TID range scale correctly. Then you can tell Jester to scan high, low, very low etc. Alternatively, you can use the scan sector command. E.G. Scan sector Angels 15 for Two Zero. Jester will adjust the radar scan volume to look for targets around 15000ft, about twenty miles away. Jester will set a more useful antenna elevation angle this way.

Anybody encountered Jester dropping the AG and going AA while the tapes are on AG from the front pit? Happened on a multiplayer flight and was having Jester look for some tanks. Some threat aircraft came up, and the next thing I knew, the screen was back on TCS, and the TID was back on. I cycled the AG tape switch again, but still stuck on AA. It took a while for Jester to switch back to AG... Never knew he could do that.

Wow those numbers are amazing. A "standard" Phoenix was able to cruise around Mach 3+ for almost 120s from launch!

Using VAICOM. When Jester is commanded to reduce to 50 Mile scan range on the TID, it seems that he drops TWS picture. He then needs to rebuild the picture again. Sitting in the backseat, the TWS picture does not seem to drop when I flip the switch from 100 down to 50 miles. Anyone getting this as well?

They had to modify the missile to hit Mach 5. In any case, the Phoenix is slow at lower altitudes. Unfortunately, it feels sluggish even when the launch platform shoots above the transonic region. It shouldn't feel it's accelerating so slowly unless it was nearing Mach 3. Nevertheless, it is still capable in thicker air. It just cannot be a TWS launch. Pilot has to go STT and wait for the target to get within 15NMI launch and leave. AMRAAMs / SD-10 etc will still require the missile to be supported at this range whereas the Phoenix would be active off the rails. It's still fairly lethal shot which needs to be honoured.

I just encountered this too. I thought it was a controller issue.

I think the "high" drag of the Phoenix down low is a little too exaggerated. Probably what we are seeing is something that doesn't account for the decrease in drag AFTER the transonic "wall". If a shooter aircraft punches the transonic drag region for the missile, the missile would not expend as much energy to do so itself. I think that the kinematic performance of the Phoenix down low currently, is as though it was a subsonic launch even when it was a supersonic launch. For a missile as large as the Phoenix, the difference between a supersonic and subsonic launch should have a significant kinematic difference because of the exponential transonic region drag.

Having the same problem but mostly in multiplayer games. The WCS for some reason shows a broken track shortly after a Phoenix was fired. A "new" (actually the same contact), would pop up under the original broken track. Naturally this results in a thrashed shot. It's just weird, sometimes the WCS is fine, sometimes it's wonky. @HB, perhaps just recode the WCS "all seeing" and forget about "simulating" the thing accurately on how it correlates etc etc. That is, the TID track will always be where the target is. After the WCS is "all seeing", then throw in some target parameters that MAY increase probability of de-correlation.

Encountered as described in the above (sitting as RIO). The TID track supporting a Phoenix launch would constantly de-correlate from the actively painted target just under it. For some reason, the WCS holds the track (with an X) but does not think that it is the target that it is being painted by the AWG-9. The TID track (with x) will remain roughly above the radar painted target. The target would have a new WCS priority assigned to it. I was hoping the WCS would know that the TID target is indeed the radar target but it does not. Is this a de-sync issue?

Just encounter an unusual behaviour of the Phoenix. The intercept trajectory appears to be sub-optimised post-loft. Target was an IL-76 crossing from right to left at about 50Nmi. When launched, the missile follows an initial lead pursuit which was fine. TID maintained the countdown track for the missile. Just as the missile reaches its optimal loft and tips over, the missile begins to follow a pure pursuit trajectory, resulting in a lagging curve and a slight chase. This means the missile has to constantly introduce collision intercept corrections rather than aiming ahead of the target in a lead-to-collision transition which would conserve more energy. Missile impacted by less than Mach 0.8 Screenshot showing the trail of the missile is attached. Its barely visible.

An interesting observation though... the AGM-88 HARM, a < Mach 2 missile, races into the loft so much much faster than the Phoenix. Will ED be doing flight model accurate adjustments to all missiles?

I loathe to see another reach back function such as MLC as well. Jester's supposed to be the RIO. Being the driver is hard work as it is. What I would like to see is a more intelligent Jester that works the WCS more to prioritise more urgent targets better - and not drop the Phoenix prioritisations when I ask to transit from a 100 mile scan to a 50 mile scan. To be honest, I have never seen the need for the WCS to prioritise more than two targets for the Phoenixes when working against tactical air threats. Jester ought to know that and set up his TWS Azimuth for +-10 or +-20. It is always a horrifying when I have two beautiful targets prioritised and phoenixes ready to go, and suddenly a friendly/bogey pops up from the corner of the azimuth limits and jumps the queue for my missiles. Its not about the chauffeurs up front telling Jester to TWS-scan 10/20 degrees -6bar azimuth (or adding scan narrow option to the wheel). Its about Jester knowing that we operating against tactical manuevering targets, and setting it radar up to do so (and prioritising the IFF for these two targets). Conversely, Jester should also know when to set up the radar to shoot a spread of 6 phoenixes at bombers at altitude. I hope the Jester update will incorporate some way to either tell Jester that we are gonna work tactical targets, or bombers, and work the WCS/Radar/TID appropriately. As a voice attack users, I was thinking along the lines of "We're engaging two fighters" would be a nice way to cue him onto the 2 tactical fighter targets. Another wishlist is some sort of feedback from the RIO. E.g. we're gonna transit from BVR to WVR, go higher, go faster. I wish I had a real human RIO to fly with but I don't, so all I can wish for is an improved Jester. =D

Hi JNelson, I accepted that explanation as plausible initially. However, after relooking at the tacview, I was not so sure. The target went into the beam/notch once the missile went active. If it was going to succumb to the notch, it would have done that there and then. Yet it was at near impact did the missile suddenly lose track, at a point in time which the supposed signal to noise ratio of the returns would be arguably the strongest. A notch at that distance would be irrelevant I would think. I did notice that this occurred when the Flanker rolled upright when abeam, presenting his side-profile to the missile rather than the plane view. The only plausible explanation I could think of was some absurdly low RCS value at the side. Is there different RCS values from front/side/top of an aircraft in DCS? Since DCS game engine clearly does not simulate radar waves going out and back, is the logic then simulated by some sort RCS-return value to a radar? I feel a very deep rabbit hole ahead.

Hi IronMike, Agree that the Phoenix's range performance is best at higher altitude, e.g. above 35k. Yet the AWG-9 seems more reliable in maintaining track when around 20k feet. Above 35k, it seems to me that the target can notch the AWG-9 more frequently. I also understand that the Tomcats would doctrinally operate around 20k+ feet, or just 1000ft below the target for the radar picture. I understand that that was due to the rather nascent lookdown capability of the AWG-9, and was a limitation until the APG-71 (and MPRF). So it's a shooter dillema, to hit far I got to climb high. To see reliably, I have to be low enough. Hence a 20k feet test scenario is really to measure an unoptimum launch scenario against a fighter target with forward quarter weapons. To see how much or how little an advantage can be exploited.

Hi IronMike, I am not sure what sort of voodoo magic ED did to the guidance. The missile does seem to lose a lot less energy going into a terminal guidance phase. It appears that missile reaction to the target manoeuvres is "dulled/delayed/lagged" a little. On some instances, missile will fail to connect at the last 100 yards (is there any proximity fuse settings)? Missile still had some smash to it. Tacview-20220205-014657-DCSweird.zip.acmi

I encountered the same guidance issue where the missile goes stupid for some reason. It happens after the first TWS missile has failed to connect for whatever reason. The 2nd and 3rd TWS shots will then not guide, even after manually dropping the TID picture by using PAL and then PLM. The 2nd and 3rd shots will still show the countdown, but missile goes straight.

What were we doing down low? Zero fighters. Thats why. =D

Thank you for the Tacview, Iron Mike! I'm really looking forward to the incoming hotfix to the guidance. I do not know whether the Phoenix making a 15 mile hit against a fast nose-cold low altitude target is in any way real-ish. To be honest, I view that it was an "over performance" that only mattered to one particular small quarter of the DCS community who insist on competing on Open Beta. I saw the unpleasant exchange over the other forum thread. For the most of us who PvE, the Phoenix being an effective long-stick was more of a boon than bane. After all, more than often we are dealing with AI with SFM, all-knowing MAW systems, and highly effective chaff. We don't get very controlled setups compared to them and yet they have been the most vocally against the Phoenix. Nevertheless as a Tomcat fan, I am heartened that the Phoenix remains effectively the longest-stick in DCS. It was rightfully a fearsome weapon for its time and in the timeline of most combat aircraft simulated in DCS presently (until the Typhoon turns up with the Meteor perhaps). I look forward to lobbing more Phoenixes in the days ahead!

Agree. It is the medium range-medium altitude shots that are trickier now. From what I observed, 55Nm from 30,000ft can have a moderate high pK when launched above Mach 1.1 and pitchback of 30 degrees. In the current FM, the Phoenix climbs and accels much faster as altitude increases. Hence, helping the Phoenix get into thinner air on launch improves the pK for long range shots. Bandit was a Su-27 Veteran, compliant until pitbull.

Hi IronMike, May I ask what is this closer distance firing distance for manuevering fighter-sized target HB is looking at (e.g. 20k ft, Nose Hot, co-alt Mach 1.1 target - J11 Flanker Veteran)? My current test perimeters is getting high pK (80%) for the A60 when fired at 25 miles. The premise was to have the motor burn all the way to impact as much as possible to increase the pK, as well as increasing the parabolic trajectory of the missile (i.e. increase the dive trajectory at terminal). Since the target was heading towards me at the same speed until its threat reaction, the A60 definitely covered about less than 20 miles of distance, conservatively, with its 30 seconds of motor, resulting in an impact at Mach 1.8. Would this be an expected result? That the Phoenix would only covered about 20 miles of distance in 30 seconds against a medium altitude maneuvering target? Cheers!

The long range shot capability is still effective provided you can get the missile to loft high enough. The problem is that now, under 30,000ft, the missile is an absolute slug. In my 20,000ft tests, 40 mile shots were very iffy. Sometimes the missile sail past the target without damage since there is no proximity fuse.

My tests were done at 30K feet, launched at 55 miles with a 30 degree pitch up to help the loft. The Phoenix's acceleration is much better once it gets above 40k feet. The higher it goes, the faster it accelerates. It retains its energy better around the 60k feet region. How slow the phoenix is at 30k feet and 20k feet is almost surreal. Its loft profile looks a lot more shallow and not very useful (ignore my loft profiles as I pitched back to achieve it). My conclusion is that right now, as a Long range missile (A60) against bombers, its still viable if additional lofting angle is provided. In combat, as a medium range- medium altitude missile, it is not likely to be useful unless the target does not turn. In the current DCS environment with the Chaff, All-knowing-AI, Atmosphere modeling, it is likely to be junk. Consider the Sparrow and merge with a Fox 2 kill instead. But if they are still hanging under the belly, its excess weight, just maddog them off prior to the merge and you might get lucky. Lightens the jet for a turning fight. I love the effort made to model the flight model of the phoenix. However, I think it just doesn't play well with the current state of the DCS engine.

Firstly, I would like to appreciate HB for all their hard work and research that has gone into the making of the Tomcat module. It is by far, my favourite module in DCS. It is amazing to me how much research, thought and work that has gone to coding a missile's kinematic performance in commercial/non-professional simulator. I am not aware whether simulators used by militaries go into this level of detail. Why HB would go down this tedious route eludes me, but I stand in admiration of what has been made and updated over the years. I've done a few high and medium altitude scenarios against a Trainee AI, Su-27 and have a few observations to share. All my shots were taken at 55Nm, at 30,000ft, and 20,000ft at co-altitude target. Target aircraft will typically make a missile defence when the Phoenix goes pitbull but no chaff employed. Target size was set to SMALL (my general practice when using phoenix against fighters). I have to caveat that my tests are not perfect and I may re run them to align other variables. 1. The missile does appear to be a lot slower than before, and it does seem to reduce the end-game energy state. This is when using a level supersonic delivery. -The missile impacts target at 1.59M when launched at 30,000ft. The missile failed to impact when launched at 20,000ft. I was not surprised by this set of results, although the missile impact energy state. Targets all began to defend the missile when pitbull. 2. The missile end-game energy state improves significantly with an assisted loft. 30 Degree pitch up was initiated at 56+Nm, with trigger depressed at 55nm. -For the 30,000ft test, missile impact at 2.27M, and 1.23M when fired at 20,000ft. Likewise, targets began to defend themselves when pitbull. The end-game energy state appears to be better due to steeper dive trajectory. 3. Missile going stupid (flies straight without guidance). It seems to happen to the follow up missiles IF the first Phoenix fails to impact the target (negative timer). When TID shows a new radar contact, I fired a second phoenix which goes stupid. When it was clear the second phoenix was not going to hit, I fired a third with ACM cover up. TID was flashing a new contact when I fired. 3rd Phoenix also went stupid. Sparrow was not affected, and flood mode worked like a charm. 4. Missile when nearing apex of the loft, continues to maintain pitch up attitude despite the speed decreasing. This seems odd to me as the missile slows down to gain a bit more altitude. I understood that the maintaining the velocity of the missile ought to be more important than attaining higher altitude, after all the job of the missile is to collide with its target as fast as possible. I think that the missile ought to taper the climb to preserve kinetic energy instead of trading it away for potential energy. The Phoenix is still kinematically deadly at BVR despite appearing to be slower. We just need to change our way of shooting it to help it reach an optimum lofted altitude. As for it getting trashed easily, its seems like a combination of bad-chaff-mechanics, questionable guidance API, and peculiar drag inducing behaviour after pitbull (hence setting small target size to maximise efficient flight time of the missile stupid stuff can happen). An additional observation in which this FM differs from the videos I see. In DCS, the missile motors fire up after separation while maintaining level attitude. Then it slowly begins a lofting climb after it gains some speed. From the live-fire videos, the RL Phoenixes fire up their motors in a negative pitch attitude. It then gains speed before pulling up into a steeper climbing trajectory. Hence, the lofting trajectory in HB's FM seems a little flatter than the reference videos online.

Neither do I. But there was a ghost target on the TID that the Phoenix went after. The real target appeared shortly after, nose hot straight at me. Did not encounter ghost targets when the target aircraft had zero chaff in the load out. Second issue encountered was the SARH mode firing from STT. The Phoenix zipped by, missing by 100ft or so. Target did not maneuver, just dumping chaff. Third issue, ACM cover lifted. Phoenix fired at target at 9Nmi with ADL on it. Also failed to guide. I'm stumped honestly.